The whole point of this blog is to bring some coherence into my ramblings. Mostly poetry, yes. But not quite :)
It always helps to have somebody criticize what I've written. At least THEN you know they've read it ....
You'll find pretty much constant whining here. No, I've still not QUITE grown out of it. Do we ever ?
Never ending grumbles... here we come!

Sunday, December 8, 2013

‘Imposing’ Sharia Law

‘Imposing Sharia Law’
What do many media outlets, Western government reports, politicians
speeches, ‘Muslim’ modernist rhetoric and Islamophobe propaganda all
have in common? They all agree on one thing – to characterise the desire
of ‘Islamists’, ‘extremists’ and ‘radical muslims’ as seeking to
‘IMPOSE’ Sharia on the world.

The reason they use this line of rhetoric is simple, it makes
non-Muslims, and Muslims ignorant about the aims of Islamic revival, to
think that the work to re-establish an Islamic state involves going
against people’s consent, and forcing people to live under a law system
against their will.

The truth is actually ironic.

Firstly, ‘Sharia law’ is a tautology, since the word Sharia means
‘Law’ and thus the sentence literally translates as ‘Law law’! The
reason they use the word ‘sharia’ is because it sounds foreign and
maximises fear to the ears of non-Muslims.

Secondly, the phrase ‘Imposing Sharia law’ is idiotic, since what law
isn’t imposed? Are there voluntary laws? The reason law is called law,
and not ‘guidelines’, is because law is obligatory, whereas guidelines
isn’t. By definition, enforcing the law is in imposition on those who
break it!

Thirdly, Is there any citizen of the U.S., France, UK or Italy that
can opt-out of the laws they live under without having to leave the
country? No. What if a citizen in these countries doesn’t believe in the
law, must they be under it? Yes – there is no options given to its
citizens to be an exception to the laws.

In fact, many Christians and Muslims have been sent to jail, or are
forced to cease following their religious conscience because the law
IMPOSED upon them a set of rules they didn’t believe it.

In Western Secular countries, we find Women banned from wearing hijab
in schools and Niqab bans across europe. Catholic adoption agencies
(despite being privately funded) are forced to close for not adopting
children to same-gender couples. Christians and Muslims arrested by
police for preaching same-gender sexual intercourse is sinful. Christian
hoteliers prosecuted for not allowing a same-gender couple to use a
room in their hotel. Christian counsellors lose their jobs for refusing
to counsel a same-gender couple. Muslims are prosecuted for criticising
Western foreign policy. Two non-violent Muslim political parties are
banned (which was upheld by European Court of Human Rights) for
espousing ideas against Secularism and Liberal Democracy etc etc the
list goes on.

Was not the Secular Liberal law imposed upon these tax-paying
citizens? Did they have a choice in the matter? No. So Secular Liberal
Democracy (Liberalism) doesn’t care whether you agree with it or not, it
will make ALL SUBMIT to it, whether you consent or not. As Secularists
say ‘One Law for All’… their law.

Islamic law actually DOESN’T impose itself on people without their
consent. Every time a Caliph comes to power, the Muslim community must
consent through Bayah (pledging allegiance after a decision/election
process) to the new Caliph. This then forms a consensual contract with
the leader which establishes his authority to rule with Islamic law upon
the Muslims. In fact, the Muslims establish a Caliph precisely to rule
with Islamic law – and thus discharge their collective obligation to
God.

When the Islamic state is created, it will start off with consent of
the Muslims, and continue getting its consent with every new Caliph –
the same can’t be said for the Western system.

In the West, whether you vote or not, all must obey the government.
The so-called ‘democratic’ elections do not give people a choice to
affirm a national law or ideology (like whether they want Communism,
Liberalism or Islam), but only to select the leader to rule over them
according to a pre-arranged system. The people are not requested to
consent to their government in the modern democratic system, only to
consent to its rulers…and even then, not exactly, since Western rulers
tend to generally be elected on a fraction of the actual population.

Just ask yourself, while Mohammed el Morsi, the so-called ‘Islamist’
was obtaining a referendum to get national consent on a new constitution
– how many Western countries historically have conducted referendums on
their constitutions? Did the so-called ‘free’ country of USA ask its
citizens to consent to their famous constitution? No.

Remember when Western politicians were decrying Morsi for not
involving more Christian input in the constitution’s drafting? It was
said that since Christians are 10% of the Egypt, the constitution should
represent them, however, I somehow don’t see France caring if its
anti-hijab and anti-Niqab laws represents the 10% Muslim population
there (which as you know France can ignore because Democracy tilts
towards the majority, and doesn’t care about minorities…unless they are a
minority in a Muslim country).
It seems the West wants Muslims to be more Democratic than even Western Democracies are!

Lastly, under Islamic law, non-Muslims are not to be subject to laws
they don’t believe in. Non-Muslims get to live under their own law
systems, under their own regional government in autonomous areas – which
historically are either regions like Millets, or city Quarters. Jews
lived under Jewish law, Christians lived under Christian law,
Zoroastrians lived under their own law (no matter how strange Muslims
found it, like ‘self-marriage’, which was legalised incest!).

History and Islamic teaching demonstrates that Islamic law is the
only law system that actually DIDN’T impose itself. The same can’t be
said for the totalitarian system of Secular Liberal Democracy, which
spreads only its own definition of ‘human rights’ and enforces only its
vision on the world’s populations whether or not they have their own
differing conceptions of human rights.

1 comment:

About Me

I love reading. Arguing about something worthwhile is my favorite pastime. Limericks bring joy to me. I smile at the elderly - and I love playing with kids.
Life is strange. I'd like to decipher it ..and soon. Since it's way too short too!
Religion is my passion..Quran and Arabic are two of the main things I intend to understand soon.. Insha Allah.
I would like to know what quantum computing is ...
Coherent ? Bet not :P